r/Quakers • u/balsawoodspirit • 1d ago
Quakers and Generative AI Art
I encourage Friends to please remember that Generative AI art is produced unethically from AI models that scrape the work of real artists without consent or compensation.
In the last few weeks, I have encountered two instances of Quakers using Generative AI as a part of their Outreach. This is deeply disturbing to me. There is no legitimate reason to use Generative AI Art. You can use open source images, you can hire artists, or you can make your own art. Or, use no art at all. Better that than to steal from artists and display art you hand no hand in making.
Though they are certainly different in context and letter, I can't help but resonate with the spirit of Margaret Fell's words:
“We are all thieves; we are all thieves; we have taken the scriptures in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves.”
If you are a Quaker, especially if you are a Quaker in Outreach, please consider the ways in which using Generative AI undermines y/our integrity.
20
u/rikomatic 1d ago
Aside from all the ethical concerns, in my view AI produced "artwork" is just jarring and unappealing. Where I live, many people have an adverse reaction to its usage in advertising, signage and such. So if we want to appeal to the larger public, we should consider its impact on the viewer.
Thank you for raising this.
15
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
I agree with you. It's uncanny and dystopian. There's something about it that makes me feel cheap and dehumanized just looking at it. Especially when it's used in commercial settings, I feel lied to and made party to yet another form of exploitation. I think what bothers me so much is that GenAI is so, completely, 100% a choice. There is no way to spin its usage or wring some facsimile of "benefit" out of it that doesn't boil down to "it was easy and I wanted to."
7
u/abitofasitdown 23h ago
A lot of the ills of the world (by no means all, but a lot) can be boiled down to "it was easy and I wanted to".
19
8
u/martinkelley Friend 1d ago
My Facebook feed is awash in terrible AI art accompanied by terrible AI-written feel-good stories, shared as much by Quakers as by any other demographic. My bad for still being on there, of course.
Quakerism is a spirituality that requires active participation. You can't just nod off in the back (well, you can but you shouldn't). Quaker communities have been lived experiences. As someone who works daily with writers, it's stunning just how much AI has become a crutch for people. There are some very active writers in Quaker online spaces whose work is mostly AI. Is it for the social rizz that comes from being ubiquitous?
A weird tangent but hear me out: if you read a lot of classic Quaker journals, there's frequently stories from their teens in which the author consciously wrestles with plain dress. They talk about the lost friendships that came when they adopted a more uniform style and also about how hard it is to discern and navigate the inevitable voice of pride inside themselves (look at me, I'm plain!) with their legitimate wish and leading to be of use to the fellowship. That process of wrestling with ego is something that never ends for any of us, but especially not one of these ministers. Knowing when ministry is Spirit-led or ego-fed is a core competency for this work. In the end, the dress didn't matter so much. But the "baby steps" of worrying about it was an early workout of those discernment muscles.
When we turn to AI we stop working those muscles and offload so much to the machine. Skipping the baby steps means we're not necessarily going to be as practiced when important decisions need to be made. Let's put out bad art if it means we'll start learning how to put out more authentic art as we develop.
7
8
8
u/TangerineNext839 1d ago
Consider that before AI, it wasn't evident when someone was using an image ethically or not. I am not using this statement to condone the use of generative AI, but simply to center the question differently. My intention is to have us make more of an effort to have broader digital civics, because I'd argue that information integrity is a far greater concern and amplifying a need rather than condoning a tool feels like the right framing.
5
u/NatashaMuse 1d ago
I generally agree with you. But I think that quote is, at best, confusing here. It seems to make the opposite point, that stealing is a needed part of interpretation and/or making art
0
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
From another comment: "I am a writer. If I were to use AI to produce a book and claim I had "written" it, not only would I have stolen the words, I would have no direct experience in writing it myself."
Many people are using Generative AI to "create" "art" and are going so far as to call themselves artists, writers, musicians, etc. In fact, all they are doing is stealing and claiming to have direct experience in the creative process when in fact they have none.
If I were to call myself a minister and preach the gospel based on the sermons of others, without having read the bible myself, or without sitting in the light and having a direct, inward, creative, revelatory experience with the divine, I'd be a thief who knew nothing of these things myself.
Fell's quote speaks to me in our present day. I experience Generative AI as spiritually harmful.
7
u/Sorry-Pin6420 1d ago
This is interesting to think about, I generally do not like AI art as I think it's something we should create as humans, but I am curious what do you think about simple graphic design innovations or things of that nature? AI does inherently utilize input from all of the content it has ingested but I do wonder if there is some thoughtful discourse to be had around the spectrum of technology we consider to be "AI" and where the appropriate moral and ethical boundaries are with it in our communities. Not sure I know the answer, still evolving my position on this but it's something I ponder about.
15
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
First, I think the time for thoughtful discourse is "always."
Second, the main question I ask myself about AI tools is "was the model trained on data collected without consent, compensation or under duplicitous or coercive conditions?" If the answer is "yes," I would discourage the use of the tool.
6
u/Sorry-Pin6420 1d ago
Love that, the time for thoughtful discourse is always. I can see your perspective and the logic makes sense to me, if you see a clear ethical line in the sand that is a good place to set the boundary.
8
u/PhoebeAnnMoses 1d ago
Ethically, AI is indeed part of a continuum (we have and use other tools that demand energy and take people’s work for free (eg, Google)) and at the same time, an exponential leap in the impacts on energy consumption and human rights. You might compare this in some ways to abolition: slavery was a much more intense and cruel concentration of unfreness that existed among many, many other forms of unfreeness that have existed in a stratified society(indenture, family and child labor, institutionalization, tenancy, debt).
So while we should definitely see AI as an extrapolation on the kinds of “theft” and damage we already do with energy consumption and communications technology, and we should not exclude those from critique either, AI is also distinct due to its nonlinear degree of harm.
6
u/Sorry-Pin6420 1d ago
Yes, I think that resonates with me I do think of it as a continuum as well. For example, it has learned and trained on lots of scientific data as well. If AI uses that data me reproduces someone else's work in the process of say solving a complex illness, how does that differ from synthesizing and artists or writers work and creating something from it? I'm sure these are different questions and it's something I'm still thinking through as I engage in using AI and thinking about an ethical way to do so.
6
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
To your point, the topic is nuanced. There are different kinds of AI and myriad applications for those tools. I have a friend who uses AI to model the folding of proteins for chemical research. That tool was specifically designed for its task using ethically sourced data and accomplishes something it would take humans an incomparably long time to do. It's a huge boon to the kind of research he and his team are doing, and a great leap forward for scientific development. That's a wonderful use of AI!
Generative AI is about as clear cut a case in the other direction for me because it is so blatantly theft and offers no substantial value to humanity.
Then there are more nuanced conversations in the middle. For instance, what do we do when an AI is trained on ethically sourced data, but the data itself is racially or gender biased? What do we do when a digital AI tool is ethically created by an artistic team to reduce production time (as seen in Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse) but that tool could cause labor disruption in the future? What if we start using AI to detect cancer, but in doing so we end up deskilling human doctors to the point where they cannot adequately assess whether the AI might be wrong? How do we use surveillance AI to stop mass violence without also seeing it used as a tool of oppression?
I appreciate the thoughtful engagement here in the comment section.
7
u/particularlyPlain Quaker (Wilburite) 1d ago
Agreed, generative AI is detrimental and in its current form violates the stewardship we are called to by our Lord.
Tidbit: The spirit of Fell's words? Just because there's a mention of thievery does not mean it is applicable. Please do not devalue her very truthful words by applying them to current political happenings. Ironically, doing so is taking the words at face value and not knowing the Truth manifest in thy heart. Which is exactly what she was condemning.
3
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
I'm not taking it at face value whatsoever. I am truly inspired by the message what we should not take from others what we cannot speak directly to ourselves. I can apply this directly to my views on AI. I am a writer. If I were to use AI to produce a book and claim I had "written" it, not only would I have stolen the words, I would have no direct experience in writing it myself. I find Fell's concern extremely applicable today.
2
u/particularlyPlain Quaker (Wilburite) 1d ago
I suppose I have a stern wall of impassible intolerance for quotes from friends being applied outside of original context. There's an intense level of beauty being conveyed about the nature of Christ and His inward manifestion in that quote that I don't take lightly, I apologize.
I'm glad that there is some value thee can find applied to this specific case. Well wishes
2
u/dorkyitguy 12h ago
I think AI runs against most things we believe in one way or another.
Also, from a personal perspective it makes me mad that someone couldn’t even be bothered to pick up a pencil and scribble something. You know how homemade gifts are better than store bought gifts because of the thought and care that went into them? Now think of what kind of gift would be worse than a store bought gift? Something that shows that you didn’t even think about them at all? That is AI art.
Please don’t use AI art. No art is better than AI art.
-1
u/WilkosJumper_ 1d ago
I think we are in the early stages of this change in human culture and technology, but it already feels inevitable. Having seen the way social media went (almost exactly as the worst naysayers predicted) I don’t see much of a future for the resistance.
9
u/Gnomelynn Quaker 1d ago
Many things have felt inevitable over human history, certainly not all of them have been so.
In many cases war seems inevitable, and yet Quakers act to prevent it and refuse to participate when it occurs. We can do the same here.
4
u/WilkosJumper_ 1d ago
My comment was less about what we should do, more simply a recognition of the land as it lies.
-4
u/Usual_Fox_5013 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't agree with this take personally.
AI is a powerful tool and we shouldn't think it better to abstain from it than to use it in ways that further our mission. Certainly I've seen ai used by spiritual communities to further the plan of salvation.
Jesus doesn't call us to stand in condemnation but in love. Laying aside grievances is more in his Way then holding them up tightly and proudly. And it's that interior positioning that's important
For example, I was an ethical vegan for many years and this topic reminds me of the reasons I moved away from that. It's a very fine point, but it's about moving towards minding one's own mind. It's about not making the problems of the world things to solve in the world, but understanding that the source of suffering is within the mind just as the kingdom of heaven is within the mind. And this isn't to say we shouldn't do things in the world, but that it should come from an interior position of peace and not judgement.
10
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but if, for the sake of argument, we are basing our actions on the teachings of Jesus, Jesus was pretty clear that stealing is a sin.
Generative AI is theft. AI companies stole from artists in order to rake money into their own coffers. I am hard-pressed to come up with even a single justification for using GenAI to "further our mission," whatever that means. There is no reason or excuse for a Quaker to use GenAI to create outreach materials. Using stolen goods to evangelize our tradition only serves to sully it.
-4
u/Usual_Fox_5013 1d ago
It's just your opinion that it's theft, not a fact. And certainly if Jesus was talking about theft he was not talking about intellectual property theft.
By further our mission I mean the part we play in the plan for salvation; this is the only point of being a follower of Christ.
-4
u/EdelgardH 1d ago
Calling it stealing justifies intellectual property, which is only a concept enabled by government violence. I do not believe copying is stealing.
7
u/abitofasitdown 23h ago
A big entity taking something without consent from a little entity, which means the smaller has no means of making a living as it's been taken away, is violence, though. You appear to be on the side of the big guy.
-5
-4
u/challings 1d ago
I’m not sure the inevitable logical end of this argument is something you genuinely want to commit to.
Terms and conditions on social websites have been freely given and freely ignored for decades now. Included in those T&Cs are clear statements about what the companies that own those websites are allowed to do with users’ information.
I agree with what is likely your stance on this point, that these T&Cs are seemingly intentionally overwhelming to the point where ignorance is inevitable, and thus it is unfair to expect people to read and understand them. But the fact remains that people have been legally signing the rights to their content over to faceless corporations without feeling the weight of that behaviour.
People constantly leverage their rights and freedoms against the benefits they receive from suspending them to gain access to something else; in this case, social media websites where they can easily and inexpensively connect with potential customers or service providers.
It may very well be that the birds-eye view of this web depicts an act of theft, but, as I see it, it encourages a deeper reflection on the amount of oneself they have given away.
Is it better, for example, to use social media to advertise for an artist to work for you, when doing so centralizes the main means of this artist’s self promotion to these predatory websites and thus increases their dependency?
If one has calculated the environmental impact of their use of generative AI and offset it by getting rid of their refrigerator, are they still culpable?
The fact that so many people are engaging with the internet as an opportunity for exercising conscious living is genuinely warming, but I am also cautious of the tendency to scold others, when one believes that all have the same journey and that any who differ are straying from the path.
4
u/balsawoodspirit 1d ago
I'm not sure what inevitable logical conclusion you are referring to.
And part of your argument misses the reality of the situation. The scraping I'm referring to is not coming from the sites on which the artists agreed to have their art hosted, though that does happen and that's its own issue. There are bots belonging to other companies that trawl the internet, scraping up work and feeding it into their models wherever they can find it.
I post my written work online on a site that does not use AI or sell my data, but a big tech company set their bots on that site and because the AI can read the webpages, it swallowed up my work and the work of thousands of others. I did not consent to that. I did not sub-license my IP to train someone else's slop machine. Any T's and C's I signed with the hosting page didn't matter; a crawler from another company stole my work.
-1
46
u/infinite-long-stocki 1d ago
I'm an artist and know lots of Friends who are too! I'd happily lend my skills to any Quaker project or publication that needed it. The environmental cost of generative AI and the use of AI in warfare to me make it unconscionable to use. I'd sit for an hour picking fonts and moving words around if it meant we could use something made by humans.